Advances of treatment in atypical cartilaginous tumours
Dierselhuis, Edwin Frank
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2019
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Dierselhuis, E. F. (2019). Advances of treatment in atypical cartilaginous tumours. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands 2 Department of Orthopaedics, Mayo Clinic- Arizona, Phoenix, Arizonia, USA
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands
Cochrane Review: Intralesional
treatment versus wide resection for
central low grade chondrosarcoma of
the long bones
Edwin F. Dierselhuis1 Krista A. Goulding2 Martin Stevens3 Paul C. Jutte3
2
ABSTRACT
Background: Grade I or low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) is a primary bone tumour
with low malignant potential. Historically, it was treated by wide resection, since accurate pre-operative exclusion of more aggressive cancers can be challenging and under-treatment of a more aggressive cancer could negatively influence oncological outcomes. Intralesional surgery for LGCS has been advocated more often in the literature over the past few years. The potential advantages of less aggressive treatment are better functional outcome and lower complication rates although these need to be weighed against the potential for compromising survival outcomes.
Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of intralesional treatment by curettage
compared to wide resection for central low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) of the long bones.
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
(CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE and Embase up to April 2018. We extended the search to include trials registries, reference lists of relevant articles and review articles. We also searched ’related articles’ of included studies suggested by PubMed.
Selection criteria: In the absence of prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we
included retrospective comparative studies and case series that evaluated outcome of treatment of central LGCS of the long bones. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival after a minimal follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcomes were upgrading of tumour; functional outcome, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score; and occurrence of complications.
Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recognised
by Cochrane. We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases and contacted corresponding authors, appraised the evidence using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool and GRADE, and performed a meta-analysis. If data extraction was not possible, we included studies in a narrative summary.
2
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies, although we were only able to extract participant data from 14 studies that included a total of 511 participants; 419 participants were managed by intralesional treatment and 92 underwent a wide resection. We were not able to extract participant data from four studies, including 270 participants, and so we included them as a narrative summary only. The evidence was at high risk of performance, detection and reporting bias.
Meta-analysis of data from 238 participants across seven studies demonstrated little or no difference in recurrence-free survival after intralesional treatment versus wide resection for central LGCS in the long bones (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.04; very low-certainty evidence). MSTS scores were probably better after intralesional surgery (mean score 93%) versus resection (mean score 78%) with a mean difference of 12.69 (95% CI 2.82 to 22.55; P value < 0.001; 3 studies; 72 participants; low-certainty evidence). Major complications across six studies (203 participants) were lower in cases treated by intralesional treatment (5/125 cases) compared to those treated by wide resection (18/78 cases), with RR 0.23 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). In four people (0.5% of total participants) a high-grade (grade 2 or dedifferentiated) tumour was found after a local recurrence. Two participants were treated with second surgery with no evidence of disease at their final follow-up and two participants (0.26% of total participants) died due to disease. Kaplan-Meier analysis of data from 115 individual participants across four studies demonstrated 96% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 300 months after resection versus 94% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 251 months after intralesional treatment (P value = 0.58; very low-certainty evidence). Local recurrence or metastases were not reported after 41 months in either treatment group.
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS
Only evidence of low- and very low-certainty was available for this review according to the GRADE system. Included studies were all retrospective in nature and at high risk of selection and attrition bias. Therefore, we could not determine whether wide resection is superior to intralesional treatment in terms of event-free survival and recurrence rates. However, functional outcome and complication rates are probably better after intralesional surgery compared to wide resection, although this is low-certainty evidence, considering
2
the large effect size. Nevertheless, recurrence-free survival was excellent in both groups and a prospective RCT comparing intralesional treatment versus wide resection may be challenging for both practical and ethical reasons. Future research could instead focus on less invasive treatment strategies for these tumours by identifying predictors that help to stratify participants for surgical intervention or close observation.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF SURGERY FOR OUTCOME IN LOW-GRADE CHONDROSARCOMA
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW QUESTION
Chondrosarcomas are one of the most common types of bone cancer, with varying degrees of severity. These tumours grow from cartilage forming cells, within the bone, or on the surface of the bone. Low-grade chondrosarcomas (LGCS) are tumours that grow slowly over time and do not generally metastasize and people do not usually die from this disease. In the late 20th century, the condition was treated by cutting out large portions of bone surrounding the tumour (wide resection). However, surgeons today more commonly treat these tumours by scraping the tumour out of the bone (intralesional treatment). In this way, the bone structure is preserved and more extensive surgery can be avoided. Therefore, people are potentially less disabled and complications can be reduced. This is only appropriate if the survival outcome of the cancer treatment is not compromised compared to wide resection. We reviewed the evidence for the harms and benefits of both types of surgery on outcomes in people with LGCS, including tumour recurrence after surgery (local recurrence), level of physical functioning and complications after surgery.
SEARCH DATE
2
STUDY CHARACTERISTICS
We identified 14 studies that were suitable for analysis with a total of 511 participants; 92 were treated by wide resection compared to 419 by intralesional treatment. Age of the participants varied from 13 to 82 years with a mean age of 48 years. Women outnumbered men in the studies by just over one and a half times, which reflects that LGCS are more common in women. People were followed-up for between 24 to 300 months after surgery. In addition, there were four studies including 270 participants, from which we could not extract the exact data, but were used to confirm the statistical analysis.
KEY RESULTS
We found that there was little or no difference in rates of local recurrence between treatment types. In 94% to 96% of the cases, the tumour was successfully removed after a single operation. In the few cases where disease recurred, a second operation was needed. People with LGCS probably have better functionality after less aggressive intralesional treatment, and complication rates were probably lower compare to wide surgical resection. Less than 0.3% of all people with LGCS died due to their disease, irrespective of the surgical technique.
CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE
Overall certainty of the studies was very low, as all studies only described the results of the treatment in hindsight and none of the studies randomly selected patients between treatment groups.
2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR
THE MAIN COMPARISON
(EXPLANATION)
Intralesional treatment versus wide resection for central, low- grade (grade I) chondrosarcoma in the long bones
Patient or population: people with central, low-grade (grade I) chondrosarcoma in the long bones
Settings: hospital
Intervention: intralesional treatment
Comparison: wide resection
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No of participants (studies) Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments Assumed risk Corresponding risk Wide resection Intralesional treatment Recurrence- free survival (24-300 months’ follow-up) 54 per 1000 (19 to 111) 68 per 1000 (34 to 116) RR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.04) 238 (7 studies) ⊕000 1 Very low Functional outcome based on MSTS score (percent) Scale 0% to 100%, with 100% indicating no functional limitations The mean MSTS was 78% and ranged across control groups f rom 72.1% to 94.3% The mean MSTS was 93% and ranged across intervention groups from 89.3% to 98.6% MD 12.7 (2.8 to 22.6) 72 (3 studies) ⊕⊕00Low2 Overall rate of major complications (24-300 months’ follow-up) 230 per 1000 (150 to 337) 40 per 1000 (13 to 82) RR 0.23 (0.10 to 0.55) 203
(six studies) ⊕⊕00Low2
Pathological upgrading of tumour
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Only 2 cases in the overall data had a transition towards grade II chon- drosarcoma, based on the narrative reporting of results
2
* The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk(and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention
(and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; MD: mean dif ference; MSTS: Musculoskeletal Tumor Society; N/A: not applicable; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High- certainty: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate- certainty: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may
change the estimate.
Low- certainty: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely
to change the estimate.
Very low- certainty: we are very uncertain about the estimate.
1All included studies were observational studies, which have an initial low level of evidence. We downgraded the evidence level since
there were serious risks of bias.
2All included studies were observational studies, which have an initial low level of evidence. We downgraded the evidence
since there were serious risks of bias. However, we upgraded them considering the large effect.
BACKGROUND
DESCRIPTION OF THE CONDITION
Chondrosarcoma is the most common primary malignant bone tumour after osteosarcoma (Bauer 1995; Eriksson 1980; Healey 1986; Rosenthal 1984), and is characterised by a heterogeneous group of bone malignancies with a cartilaginous origin (Fletcher 2013). Chondrosarcoma constitute 20% to 27% of all primary bone tumours (Murphey 2003). Reported overall incidence is 1: 200,000 to 1:500,000, with men and women being more or less equally affected (ESMO 2012; Giuffrida 2009). Incidence is high- est between the 3rd and 7th decade of life (ESMO 2012; Jundt 2008). Chondrosarcoma vary from low-grade, relatively benign to high-grade or dedifferentiated tumours with very poor survival. Conventional chondrosarcoma can originate outside the bone (periosteal or peripheral chondrosarcoma) or within the bone (central chondrosarcoma); the latter accounts for 75% of all of these tumours. Tumours can either be intra-compartmental (Enneking stage IA) or extra-compartmental (Enneking stage IB (Enneking 1986)). Oncological outcome is predominately determined by histological grading, ranging from I to III, with higher-grade tumours associated with worse prognosis. Central grade I (low-grade (LG)) chondrosarcoma (LGCS) tumours tend to grow slowly and rarely metastasize, resulting in an 83% to 89% 10-year survival rate (Bjornsson 1998; Evans 1977; Fiorenza 2002). Microscopically, they exhibit a matrix rich in hyaline cartilage (Gelderblom 2008). The
2
most important clinical symptom is persistent (nocturnal) pain, although LGCS can be asymptomatic. Treatment of LGCS is primarily surgical, since these tumours are generally resistant to radiation or systemic therapy (Eriksson 1980; Lee 1999).
In clinical practice, the treating physician is presented with a diagnostic dilemma. In a substantial number of cases, it is difficult to differentiate central LGCS from its benign equivalent, en- chondroma (Eefting 2009; Geirnaerdt 1997; Mirra 1985; Randall 2005). Intermediate- and high-grade chondrosarcoma display typical signs, such as perilesional oedema and cortical destruction. Enchondroma can be managed conservatively with observation or treated with intralesional curettage. Malignant transformation of a solitary enchondroma is rare. On the other hand, intermediate- and high-grade chondrosarcoma display a much more aggressive course, with 10-year survival rates ranging from 53% to 64% and 29% to 38%, respectively, and a higher incidence of local recurrence and distant metastases (Bjornsson 1998; Fiorenza 2002; Giuffrida 2009). They are treated with ’en bloc’ resection (wide resection) with reconstruction (prosthesis) or amputation, which hampers joint and limb function. Historically, orthopaedic surgeons tended to treat LGCS in a similar fashion. More recently, there has been a tendency to perform intralesional surgery in LGCS by extended intralesional curettage, preferably with local adjuvant therapy, such as phenolisation, the use of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and application of cryotherapy (Donati 2010; Leerapun 2007; Schreuder 1998; Van der Geest 2008; Veth 2005). Some studies suggest that intralesional surgery could lead to higher local recurrence rates, which in itself could lead to upgrading towards high-grade chondrosarcoma (Andreou 2011). LGCS tumours located in the pelvis and axial skeleton tend to be more aggressive and require other treatment strategies, often similar to higher-grade tumours (Gelderblom 2008). Therefore, we have described only treatment of tumours in the long bones in this review.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION
Intralesional surgery in LGCS is carried out by curettage. During this procedure, the tumour is accessed through a cortical window, extensive curettage is carried out and often supplemented with the use of a high-speed burr. After curettage, local adjuvant therapy can be applied, either by phenolisation or cryotherapy (see How the intervention might work). In a large number of cases, bone cement (PMMA) is used as an additional adjuvant and filler. The cavity is filled, where necessary, with bone graft or cement; larger
2
cortical windows can then be refashioned to the bone followed by routine wound closure. In some cases, prophylactic hardware (metal pins and plates often used to help repair fractured bones) is used to prevent fracturing. Depending on the site of the tumour, patients are prohibited from weight bearing six to 12 weeks after surgery. Generally, curettage is indicated if the joint surface is unaffected, if the lesion is contained in bone or a sufficient bony architecture remains after surgery. The most serious complications after curettage are fracture of the treated site and infection.
HOW THE INTERVENTION MIGHT WORK
Extended intralesional curettage removes malignant tumour cells, but by definition will likely leave some microscopic cells behind. As a result, local adjuvant therapy is often performed. Phenol has a proven cytotoxic effect on LGCS cells and is used with the inten- tion to kill tumour cells that cannot be reached with the curette (Verdegaal 2012). The strongest evidence exists for cryotherapy, whereby liquid nitrogen is sprayed or poured into the bone cavity (Van der Geest 2008). It is thought that local freezing extends the surgical margin. In some centres, the bone cavity is filled with PMMA, and it is hypothesised that the heat released during the exothermic reaction as it sets has an additional cytotoxic effect on tumour cells. Given the relatively mild nature of LGCS, we hypothesise that these measures are sufficient to treat the disease. The major benefit of curettage compared to wide resection is improved functional outcome as a result of joint preservation and the avoidance of large bony resections or ablative surgery. Although people might be temporarily disabled due to decreased weight bearing after curettage, long-term functionality can often fully be restored.
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO DO THIS REVIEW
LGCS has an overall incidence rate that is relatively low compared to other types of cancer. To our knowledge, there are no prospective, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), given the low number of people affected. In literature, only small, retrospective studies have been published comparing intralesional treatment with wide resection (Aarons 2009; Bauer 1995; Donati 2010; Etchebehere 2005; Leerapun 2007; Schreuder 1998; Van der Geest 2008). This type of study is often subject to a high degree of bias and the numbers are often too small for meaningful statistical analysis. A systematic review is necessary to search for and summarise the available evidence. Hickey 2011 performed
2
a meta-analysis on this specific topic and it showed that intralesional therapy is not necessarily inferior to wide resection. Since then, several studies have been published, which justifies an updated overview. This review will be important, since intralesional treatment may have significant functional benefits compared to resection. Therefore, if the intralesional treatment is equally beneficial from a recurrence and survival point of view, it may be better to perform curettage instead of wide resection.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of intralesional treatment by curettage compared to wide resection for central low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) of the long bones.
METHODS
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW
TYPES OF STUDIES
Since no RCTs or other prospective studies were available, we included retrospective cohort studies comparing oncologic outcome of intralesional treatment of LGCS to wide resection in the long bones (i.e. humerus, radius, ulna, femur, tibia and fibula). In addition, we included case series with at least 20 participants. We also included studies examining other types of chondrosarcoma, from which we retrieved data related to central LGCS. If RCTs become available in literature, they still will be eligible for inclusion in future versions of the review.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
We included all participants with central LGCS in the long bones. We did not apply age restrictions.
2
TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS
We compared intralesional treatment (curettage) with or without adjuvant (phenol and ethanol, cryosurgery, bone cement or combinations) to wide resection, including amputation.
TYPES OF OUTCOME MEASURES
We prespecified the following outcomes, which are also included in the ’Summary of findings’ table.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES
Primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (defined as local recurrence and/or metastases), with a minimum follow-up duration of two years after index surgery.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
We considered the following secondary outcomes: • incidence of pathological upgrading of tumour;
• functional outcome based on Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, if available. The MSTS score is a well-accepted and commonly used score to determine function after surgery for bone tumours (Enneking 1993). It includes six categories (pain, function, emotional acceptance, use of supports, walking ability and gait), with numerical values from 0 to 5 points; in total 30 points can be reached, often also presented as percentage, with 100% equalling 30 points, and 30 points or 100% indicating no functional limitations;
• overall rate of major complications based on the following adverse events, if available: fracture, infection, re-operation (due to reasons other than progression of disease) or thromboembolic events. Grading of adverse events is outside the scope of this review.
2
SEARCH METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES
ELECTRONIC SEARCHES
We searched the following databases:
• the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library (Appendix 1);
• MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April 2018) (Appendix 2); • Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018, week 17) Appendix 3). We did not apply language restrictions.
SEARCHING OTHER RESOURCES
We extended our search to the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles, as well as contacting study authors to provide missing information. We also scanned related articles suggested by PubMed. In addition, we searched for ongoing trials by scanning online trials registries, such as Current Controlled Trials (http:// www.isrctn.com), and ClinicalTrials.gov, and searched for oral and poster abstracts presented in appropriate meetings (e.g. EMSOS, ISOLS).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
SELECTION OF STUDIES
We downloaded all titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching to a reference management database and removed duplicates. Three review authors (EFD, PCJ, KG) examined the remaining references independently. We excluded those studies that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. In addition, we obtained copies of the full text of potentially relevant references. Three review authors (EFD, PCJ, KG) independently assessed the eligibility of retrieved publications. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the three review authors and if necessary by involving the fourth review author (MS). We documented our reasons for exclusion.
2
DATA EXTRACTION AND MANAGEMENT
For included studies, we extracted the following data.
• Author, year of publication and journal citation (including language) • Country
• Setting
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria • Study design and methodology • Study population:
· total number enrolled; · patient characteristics; · age • Intervention details: · definition/details • Comparison: · definition/details
• Risk of bias in study (see below) • Duration of follow-up
• Outcomes:
· for each outcome, we extracted the outcome definition and unit of measurement (if relevant). For adjusted estimates, we have recorded variables adjusted for in analyses.
• Results:
· we extracted the number of participants allocated to each intervention group, the total number analysed for each outcome, and the missing participants (if applicable).
We extracted the following information.
• For time-to-event data (survival and disease progression), we extracted the log of the hazard ratio (log (HR)) and its standard error from study reports. If these are not reported, we attempted to estimated the log (HR) and its standard error using the methods of Parmar 1998.
• For dichotomous outcomes we extracted the number of participants in each treatment arm who experienced the outcome of interest and the number of
2
participants assessed at endpoint, in order to estimate an odds ratio (OR). • For continuous outcomes, we extracted the final value and standard deviation
of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at endpoint in each treatment arm at the end of follow-up, in order to estimate the mean difference between treatment arms and its standard error.
We noted the time points at which outcomes were collected and reported.
Three review authors (EFD, PCJ, KG) independently extracted the data onto a data abstraction form specially designed for the review. We resolved differences between review authors by discussion or by appeal to a fourth author (MS) if necessary.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS IN INCLUDED STUDIES
We assessed the risk of bias using ROBINS-I, since all studies were non-randomised, retrospective studies (Sterne 2016). We achieved consensus on seven domains through which bias might be introduced into non-randomised studies for interventions (bias due to confounding, bias in selection of participants into the study, bias in classification of interventions, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing data, bias in measurement of outcomes, and bias in selection of the reported result). The first two domains, covering confounding and selection of participants into the study, addressed issues before the start of the interventions that were compared (“baseline”). The third domain addressed classification of the interventions themselves. The other four domains addressed issues arising after the start of interventions: biases due to deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of the reported result (Sterne 2016).
Important confounders of interest in this Cochrane Review include the following. • Tumour stage (Enneking 1A or 1B)
• Surgical techniques and local adjuvants • Pathological diagnosis
• Time period of treatment
Three review authors (EFD, PCJ, KG) applied the ’Risk of bias’ tool independently and resolved differences by discussion or by appeal to a fourth review author (MS). We summarised results in both a ’Risk of bias’ graph and a ’Risk of bias’ summary. We
2
interpreted results of meta-analyses in light of the findings with respect to risk of bias. Each of the seven domains of bias contains signalling questions to facilitate judgements of risk of bias. The full signalling question and response framework for each outcome is provided in Sterne 2016. Following completion of the signalling questions, we determined a ’Risk of bias’ judgement for each domain and obtained an overall ’Risk of bias’ judgement for each outcome and result assessed. Overall risk of bias has four categories ranging from low risk of bias (the study is at low risk of bias across all domains) to critical risk of bias (the study is at critical risk of bias in at least one domain). If there was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias in one or more key domains, but there was no indication that there was any critical or serious risk of bias in any of the other domains, then we have designated the overall classification as ’no information’.
MEASURES OF TREATMENT EFFECT
We used the following measures of the effect of treatment.
• We had hoped to use hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event data but the data only allowed us to compute the risk ratio (RR) and OR.
• For dichotomous outcomes, we used the RR.
• For continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) between treatment arms.
UNIT OF ANALYSIS ISSUES
No cluster-RCT or cross-over RCTs were available for inclusion. We could not identify multiple groups within the studies presented.
DEALING WITH MISSING DATA
We did not impute missing outcome data for the primary outcome. If data were missing we contacted study authors to request data only on the outcomes for the participants they had assessed.
ASSESSMENT OF HETEROGENEITY
We assessed heterogeneity between studies by visual inspection of forest plots, by estimation of the percentage heterogeneity between studies that could not be ascribed to sampling variation (Higgins 2003), by a formal statistical test of the significance of the
2
heterogeneity (Deeks 2001). If there had been evidence of substantial heterogeneity, we would have investigated and reported the possible reasons for this.
ASSESSMENT OF REPORTING BIASES
Reporting bias was assessed as part of the ’Risk of bias’ tool (Sterne 2016).
DATA SYNTHESIS
In case of clinically and statistically homogeneous studies, we pooled their results in meta-analyses using the Cochrane Collaboration’s statistical software, Review Manager 2014. Although there were no signs of significant heterogeneity, due to subtle differences in diagnostics and treatments, we used a random-effects model. If individual time-to-event data were present, we extracted them to compute the Kaplan-Meyer curve of recurrence-free survival. For time-to-event data we were only able to compute RRs and ORs. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the RR for each study and pooled them. For continuous outcomes, we pooled the MDs between the treatment arms at the end of follow-up.
SUBGROUP ANALYSIS AND INVESTIGATION OF HETEROGENEITY
We did not conduct subgroup analysis.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
We did not perform sensitivity analyses excluding studies at high risk of bias, since all studies were at high risk of bias.
MAIN OUTCOMES OF ’SUMMARY OF FINDINGS’ TABLE FOR ASSESSING THE CERTAINTY OF THE EVIDENCE
We presented the overall certainty of the evidence for each main outcome according to the GRADE approach, which takes into account issues not only related to internal validity (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias) but also to external validity, such as directness of results (Langendam 2013). We created Summary of findings for the main comparison based on the methods described the Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Schünemann 2017), and using GRADEpro GDT
2
Group certainty of evidence definitions (Meader 2014). We downgraded the evidence from ’high’ certainty by one level for serious (or by two for very serious) concerns for each limitation.
• High-certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
• Moderate-certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
• Low-certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
• Very low-certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
The main outcomes were recurrence-free survival, MSTS scores and rates of major complications.
RESULTS
DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES
RESULTS OF THE SEARCH
No studies were identified through CENTRAL. The MEDLINE and Embase searches identified 331 and 519 records respectively, and handsearching yielded two additional studies. After removal of duplicate studies and title and abstract screening, we included a total of 32 studies for potential eligibility, (see Figure 1 for flow-chart). We fully reviewed the full texts of all 32 selected papers for eligibility and we excluded 14 studies because their sample size was too small, or they had not documented data concerning recurrence-free survival for LGCS in the long bones (see Excluded studies). We included a total of 18 studies in this review. Of these, seven studies were suitable for meta-analysis; details of these studies can be found in the Characteristics of included studies section. In addition, we used participant data from seven case series in the narrative summary or to assess
2
recurrence-free survival and included four studies for qualitative analysis only, since we could not extract participant data, and are described in the Characteristics of included studies section.
2
INCLUDED STUDIES
DESIGN OF THE STUDIES
There were no RCTs or quasi-RCTs available. Aarons 2009, Bauer 1995, Chen 2017, Campanacci 2013, Donati 2010, Etchebehere 2005 and Gunay 2013 were retrospective studies comparing intralesional treatment versus wide resection. The remaining 11 studies were retrospective case series or cohort series available for qualitative analysis on recurrence-free survival (Di Giorgio 2011; Dierselhuis 2016; Funovics 2010; Hanna 2009; Kim 2015; Kim 2018; Leerapun 2007; Mermerkaya 2014; Mohler 2010; Van der Geest 2008; Verdegaal 2012). The case series included only participants that were treated by intralesional surgery and were not controlled by wide resection.
SAMPLE SIZES
In total, the comparative studies included 238 participants (sample sizes from 8 to 85), 146 managed by intralesional management and 92 by wide resection. The case series included in the narrative summary studied 249 participants (sample sizes from 21 to 108), managed by intralesional treatment. The four studies that were only included in the qualitative analysis included 270 participants (sample sizes from 55 to 85).
PARTICIPANTS
AGE, GENDER AND FOLLOW-UP
The mean age of the participants was 45.8 years (range 13 to 80), in participants included in the meta-analysis, and 51.5 (range 18 to 82), in the cases series. A slight female preponderance was present in the cohort included in the meta-analysis, with a male to female ratio of 1:1.3. Mean follow-up was 85.2 months (range 24 to 300), in the studies included in the meta-analysis and 56.8 months (range 26 to 134), in the case series.
DISEASE SEVERITY
Aarons 2009, Chen 2017, Dierselhuis 2016, Hanna 2009, Kim 2015, Kim 2018 and Mermerkaya 2014 included only Enneking stage IA tumours. Bauer 1995, Campanacci 2013, Etchebehere 2005 and Gunay 2013 included both Enneking stage IA and IB.
2
It is unclear whether Di Giorgio 2011, Donati 2010 and Mohler 2010 included only stage IA or both tumour stages.
EXCLUDED STUDIES
We excluded the following eight studies: Ahlmann 2007, Okada 2009, Ozaki 1996, Puri 2009, Schreuder 1998 and Souna 2010 did not include a sufficient number of participants; and Errani 2017 and Lee 1999 studied a heterogeneous group of LGCS (either primary, secondary, in the axial skeleton or in extremities). These studies did not document the outcome of participants with primary LGCS in the long bones, and we could not, therefore, include them in the meta-analysis or narrative summary, since the majority of study participants did not meet our inclusion criteria. Full exclusion details can be found in Characteristics of excluded studies.
Andreou 2011, Angelini 2012, de Camargo 2010, Ma 2009, Meftah 2013 and Streitbuerger 2009 contained valuable data on the outcome of treatment of LGCS, however we could not extract the exact data from the studies due to their heterogeneous nature. In all cases we attempted to contact the study authors for individual participant data, which could not be obtained. We have summarised these studies under Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.
RISK OF BIAS IN INCLUDED STUDIES
Overall, there was a high risk of bias in the included comparative studies (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). This bias was mainly caused by confounding bias, in selection of participants (selection bias) and in classification of interventions. In these studies, identification of confounding variables was absent and thus we did not perform analysis of confounding. Selection bias was apparent in these retrospective studies, as there was no control of the inclusion of participants. In addition, insight into the choice of intervention for a specific participant is very probably related to participant characteristics, such as aggressiveness, or staging of the tumours, or both. About half of the studies suffered from missing data (attrition bias). Measurement of outcomes and selection of reported results (reporting bias) are less likely to be problematic. There were also suspected other biases because groups were not controlled for experience of the surgeon and pre-operative functioning level of the participants.
2
FIGURE 2. ’Risk of bias’ summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
2
FIGURE 3. ’Risk of bias’ graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
BIAS DUE TO CONFOUNDING
Risk of bias due to confounding was high in all studies
BIAS IN SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO THE STUDY
Risk of bias in selection of participants into the study was high in all studies, except for Etchebehere 2005, which we regarded as unclear risk.
BIAS IN CLASSIFICATION OF INTERVENTIONS
Risk of bias in classification of interventions was high in all studies, except for Funovics 2010, Van der Geest 2008, Verdegaal 2012, which were regarded as unclear.
BIAS DUE TO DEVIATIONS FROM INTENDED INTERVENTION
Risk of bias due to deviations from intended intervention was unclear in all studies.
BIAS DUE TO MISSING DATA
In Aarons 2009, Campanacci 2013 and Chen 2017 there was a low risk of bias due to missing data. There was a high risk of bias in Bauer 1995, Etchebehere 2005, and Gunay 2013, and an unclear risk in Donati 2010.
2
BIAS IN MEASUREMENT OF OUTCOMES
Risk of bias in measurement of outcomes was low in all studies, except for Gunay 2013, which we regarded as unclear risk.
BIAS IN SELECTION OF THE REPORTED RESULT
Risk of bias in selection of the reported result was low in Aarons 2009, Campanacci 2013, Chen 2017, Donati 2010 and Etchebehere 2005. High risk of bias was expected in Bauer 1995 and Gunay 2013.
OTHER BIAS
In all studies there was a risk of bias as groups were not controlled for experience of the surgeon, and pre-operative functioning level of the participants. Nevertheless, all studies took place in tertiary referral hospitals, where we would expect to find an experienced operating team.
FROM RISK OF BIAS TO CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE
As all outcomes were based on solely observational studies, the entry point of the outcomes on a certainty-of-evidence level was low. Further adjustment of the level of certainty of the evidence is indicated under Effects of interventions section.
EFFECTS OF INTERVENTIONS
See: Summary of findings for the main comparison Intralesional treatment versus wide resection for central, low-grade (grade I) chondrosarcoma in the long bones
QUANTITATIVE SYNTHESIS: CONTROLLED STUDIES INCLUDED IN META-ANALYSIS
Data from the comparative studies are represented in the Summary of findings for the main comparison.
RECURRENCE-FREE SURVIVAL
There is very low-certainty evidence (observational studies with a serious risk of bias) from seven studies (n = 238) that the difference in recurrence-free survival after intralesional treatment versus wide resection for central LGCS in the long bones is not
2
statistically significant (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; Analysis 1.1; Figure 4). There was one participant with upgrading of tumour to grade II, treated with second surgery with no evidence of disease at known follow-up (Campanacci 2013). As is shown in Figure 4, I2 = 0%, which implies that there was no evidence of substantial heterogeneity.
FIGURE 4. Forest plot of comparison 1. Comparative studies, outcome 1.1 recurrence-free survival. Event = recurrence-recurrence-free survival
FIGURE 5. Forest plot of comparison 1. Comparative studies, outcome 1.2 function by MSTS score
FIGURE 6. Forest plot of comparison 1. Comparative studies, outcome 1.3 complications. Event = major complication (e.g. fracture, infection)
2
FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME
There is low-certainty evidence (observational studies with a serious risk of bias) from three studies (n = 72) that intralesional surgery is more effective in acquiring higher MSTS scores than wide resection (93% versus 78%, respectively; mean difference 12.7; 95% CI 2.8 to 22.6; P < 0.001; Analysis 1.2; Figure 5). We upgraded the certainty of evidence from very low to low due to the large effect.
MAJOR COMPLICATIONS
There is low-certainty evidence (observational studies with a serious risk of bias) from six studies (n = 203) that intralesional surgery is more effective in preventing major complications (5/125) as compared to wide resection (18/78 cases), with RR 0.23 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.55; Analysis 1.3; Figure 6). We upgraded the certainty of evidence from very low to low due to the large effect.
NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF CASE SERIES AND STUDIES NOT INCLUDED IN META-ANALYSIS
Several studies were case series describing one type of treatment, or we were unable to extract data from them, so we have included these studies in the narrative summary only because we could not include them in the meta-analysis.
RECURRENCE-FREE SURVIVAL (CASE SERIES, EXACT PARTICIPANT DATA AVAILABLE)
Recurrence-free survival in the case series in which curettage with adjuvant was applied, was 96% in Di Giorgio 2011 (23 participants), 95% in Dierselhuis 2016 (108 participants), 95% in Hanna 2009 (39 participants), 100% in Kim 2015 (36 participants), 100% in Kim 2018 (24 participants), 100% in Mermerkaya 2014 (21 participants) and 91% in Mohler 2010 (22 participants), all in line with the meta-analysis. In Di Giorgio 2011, there was one participant with upgrading of tumour to grade II, treated with second surgery with no evidence of disease at known follow-up. We were unable to synthesise data from these case series into the meta-analysis due to lack of control group.
2
RECURRENCE-FREE SURVIVAL (COMPARATIVE STUDIES OR CASE SERIES, EXACT PARTICIPANT DATA NOT AVAILABLE)
Funovics 2010 treated 70 participants with LGCS in the trunk and extremities. Local recurrence occurred in eight participants (11.4%), all in the intralesional (17.9%), or marginal (14.3%), and none in the wide resection group. Recurrence-free survival was significantly better for participants with extremity lesions compared to truncal lesions with 94.0% and 91.5% at 24 and 48 months, in line with the meta-analysis. Leerapun 2007 analysed 70 participants with LGCS in the long bones that were treated either by marginal or wide resection, or by intralesional treatment. Overall five-year recurrence-free survival was 89%, which was not in line with the meta-analysis. There was no difference in survival between intralesional excision (79%) and wide resection (91%) respectively, in line with the meta-analysis. Overall mortality was 2.9%, with one participant after development of a dedifferentiated out of local recurrence and one after local recurrence with upgrading to grade II tumour after resection, which is not in line with the meta-analysis. Verdegaal 2012 analysed 85 participants with LGCS in the long bones, treated by intralesional surgery with local adjuvant. After mean follow-up of 6.8 years there was a 94% recurrence-free survival, in line with the meta-analysis. No metastases, upgrading of tumour or death due to disease was observed, also in line with the meta-analysis. Van der Geest 2008 treated 130 tumours in 123 participants with curettage and cryotherapy. They included active enchondromas (n = 18), aggressive enchondromas (n = 57) and LGCS (n = 55). During follow-up two participants (2%) suffered from a local recurrence, both were participants with an enchondroma. None of the participants with LGCS had a local recurrence, or other oncologic events, in line with the meta-analysis.
FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME (CASE SERIES, EXACT PARTICIPANT DATA AVAILABLE)
The following studies documented MSTS scores: Di Giorgio 2011 (mean 90%); Hanna 2009 (mean 94%); Kim 2018 (mean 92%); Mermerkaya 2014 (mean 95%); and Mohler 2010 (mean 91%). These results were all in line with the meta-analysis.
2
MAJOR COMPLICATIONS (CASE SERIES, EXACT PARTICIPANT DATA AVAILABLE)
In Di Giorgio 2011, major complications occurred in 13% of participants; in Dierselhuis 2016, 15%; and in Kim 2015, 17%; these results were not in line with the meta-analysis. In Kim 2018, no complications occurred, in Mermerkaya 2014 and Mohler 2010, 5% of participants suffered from complications, in line with the meta-analysis.
MAJOR COMPLICATIONS (COMPARATIVE STUDIES OR CASE SERIES, EXACT PARTICIPANT DATA NOT AVAILABLE)
Complications occurred in 13% of participants in Funovics 2010, with 5% in the intralesional group versus 29% in the wide resection group (P value = 0.002), in line with the meta-analysis. In Verdegaal 2012, one participant (1.2%) suffered from a wound infection and two participants (2.4%) from a femoral fracture, in line with the meta-analysis. Verdegaal 2012 re-operated on 11 participants for suspected recurrences, which were confirmed in five cases. Eighteen post-operative fractures occurred (14%) in the series from Van der Geest 2008, which was not in line with meta- analysis.
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT DATA
Kaplan-Meier analysis of the data from 115 individual participants (wide resection n = 51, intralesional surgery n = 64), across four studies (Aarons 2009, Bauer 1995, Donati 2010, Etchebehere 2005), demonstrates 96% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 300 months after resection versus 94% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 251 months after intralesional treatment (P value = 0.58; Figure 7). Local recurrence or metastases were not reported after 41 months in either treatment group.
2
FIGURE 7. Kaplan Meyer survival curve of recurrence-free survival of participants with LGCS in the long bones. P = 0.58
DISCUSSION
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the outcome of intralesional surgery versus wide resection for central LGCS of the long bones. The primary endpoint was recurrence- free survival with a minimal follow-up of two years after index surgery. Secondary endpoints were incidence of tumour upgrading, functional outcome (as measured by the MSTS score) and the overall rate of complications.
SUMMARY OF MAIN RESULTS
The review found little or no difference in recurrence-free survival after intralesional surgery as compared to wide resection in LGCS of the long bones (Analysis 1.1). Intralesional surgery probably led to better functional outcome (Analysis 1.2), and
2
demonstrated lower major complication rates (Analysis 1.3). Taking into account all limitations from the included studies, we graded the evidence for these outcomes as very low and low certainty. With respect to the qualitative analysis, all but one study (Leerapun 2007), were in line with the meta-analysis concerning recurrence-free survival. In four case series (Di Giorgio 2011; Dierselhuis 2016; Kim 2015; Van der Geest 2008), there were a relatively high number of postoperative fractures, either due to non-aggressive plating or use of cryosurgery.
OVERALL COMPLETENESS AND APPLICABILITY OF EVIDENCE
There is very low-certainty evidence on the treatment of LGCS in the long bones based on the retrospective comparative studies and case series. However, the participants included in the studies and the applied techniques represent the known patient population and are therefore relevant to current practice. All the studies documented the event of a local recurrence or other signs of disease. All local recurrences occurred within 41 months after index surgery; 63% of the participants had a minimal follow-up of five years. Aarons 2009, Chen 2017, Di Giorgio 2011, Donati 2010, Hanna 2009, Mermerkaya 2014 and Mohler 2010 measured functional outcome in 175/487 (36%) of the participants. The studies did not describe the time-point at which they assessed functional out- come, however we hypothesised that the studies had documented it at the final stage of follow-up. The occurrence of major complications was documented in most participants (413/487; 85%), except in Bauer 1995 and Hanna 2009. However, several studies did not document loss to follow-up (Donati 2010; Etchebehere 2005; Gunay 2013; Hanna 2009; Kim 2015; Mermerkaya 2014; Mohler 2010). This might have biased outcomes, since participants that died due to disease or were referred to other centres may not have been included.
QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE
Certainty (quality) of the evidence was very low according to GRADE (Summary of findings for the main comparison), and ’Risk of bias’ assessment, since only retrospective comparative studies and case series were available for inclusion in this review. Obser- vational studies initially have a low level of evidence certainty, and consequently, we downgraded the included studies considering the high risk of biases. For the secondary outcomes (functional outcome and complications), there was a large effect, which allowed
2
us to upgrade the level of evidence by one level. To date, there are no prospective studies available in literature nor any RCTs. However, we were able to extract individual data from 115 participants, which enabled as to compute a Kaplan Meyer curve of recurrence-free survival. In this way, progression of disease for LGCS could be reconstructed in detail. It is not to be expected that the level of evidence will increase in studies to come, unless prospective cohort studies evaluating a treatment strategy are designed.
POTENTIAL BIASES IN THE REVIEW PROCESS
The oncological outcomes presented in many of the comparative studies should be interpreted with caution, as these studies are highly susceptible to selection bias, since people treated by intralesional curettage tended to have less aggressive LGCS (Aarons 2009; Bauer 1995; Donati 2010; Gunay 2013). Moreover, case series only reported the outcome of intralesional surgery, while people with more aggressive tumours radiologically were managed with wide resection, and thus excluded. Furthermore, case series concerning intralesional treatment might be subject to publication bias favouring the series in which participants do well. An important distinction should also be highlighted with respect to Enneking stage IA and IB disease. Cortical breakthrough may be a sign of increased local aggressiveness; the implication in terms of treatment modality is unclear and raises the question as to whether these lesions should be treated along the same lines or not. Only Bauer 1995 and Gunay 2013 reported treatment of Enneking stage IB explicitly. Bauer 1995 treated four cases with stage IB, three by intralesional treatment and one by wide resection. None of these tumours developed a local recurrence. Gunay 2013 treated all 11 cases with stage IB LGCS by wide resection. Of these, two (18%) developed a local recurrence. This rate is higher than that reported by other studies in this review, but is nevertheless comparable to their overall rate of local recurrence (6/30 participants (20%)).
AGREEMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STUDIES OR REVIEWS
We are uncertain whether intralesional surgery improves recurrence-free survival, functional outcome and complication rates compared to wide resection, as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as being very low. Nevertheless, this analysis seems in line with the previously published meta-analysis of Hickey 2011. It should be noted that
2
one study that we included in the narrative summary observed death due to disease (Leerapun 2007), one case after intralesional treatment and one case after wide resec- tion. This is in conflict with the results from all the other included studies. We are not able to solve the controversy whether local recurrence precedes upgrading of tumour, or that local recurrence is the consequence of a underdiagnosed higher-grade tumour. Although speculative, it is not unthinkable that the absence of (high-certainty) magnetic resonance imaging in the 1970’s and 1980’s could have led to a higher rate of underdiagnosed tumours. This is supported by the fact that death due to disease is no longer seen in studies that are published after 2010, although this could also be subject to publication bias.
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
There was very limited and very low-certainty evidence on how to treat central low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) of the long bones. We only found retrospective comparative studies or case series, which are greatly biased by patient selection. Based on these data, there is evidence of very low certainty that recurrence-free survival is equal between intralesional treatment and wide resection. There is evidence of low certainty that intralesional surgery increases functional outcome as reported by Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores. The included studies described many forms of adjuvants, such as phenolisation, the use of nitrogen, anhydrous alcohol and the application of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Details regarding the use of these adjuvants were lacking in most studies and so we could assess them.
Among the papers included in the meta-analysis and Kaplan Meyer calculation, there were no local recurrences after 41 months. Only three cases have been reported in modern literature where local recurrence occurred beyond five years for this tumour subtype. Verdegaal 2012 and Meftah 2013 reported cases of local recurrence at 64 months, 91 months and 67 months respectively.
2
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Considering the low incidence of this disease and the oncologic sequelae, such as local recurrence, future research is best performed in a multinational setting. The current level of evidence supporting intralesional treatment of LGCS is of very low certainty. Nevertheless, in our opinion a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing intralesional treatment versus wide resection may be unwarranted for both practical and ethical reasons. As this review has demonstrated, local recurrence after intralesional treatment occurs in approximately 5% of people only, with no demonstrable negative effect on patient survival. Future research should, perhaps, instead focus on less invasive treatment strategies for these tumours by identifying predictors that help to stratify people for surgical intervention or close observation. During the development of this review, the World Health Organization (Fletcher 2013), renamed LGCS as an atypical cartilaginous tumour (ACT). By definition, they are now tumours of borderline or low malignant potential. Although outside the scope of this review, considering the very low number of reported local recurrences and the fact the metastasis is so rare, there may even be a case for observation of smaller, less active lesions, especially those without cortical scalloping.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Jo Platt, Information Manager, for designing the search strategy and for her assistance for the extended search and Clare Jess, Managing Editor, for her contribution to the editorial process. We would also like to thank Roy Stewart, Gerjon Hannink and Wilco Jacobs for their assistance with the statistical strategies and analysis.
This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure to the Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
2
REFERENCES
REFERENCES TO STUDIES INCLUDED IN THIS REVIEW
Aarons 2009 {published and unpublished data}
Aarons C, Potter BK, Adams SC, Pitcher DJ, Templet TH. Extended intralesional treatment versus resection of low- grade chondrosarcomas. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2009;467:2105-11.
Bauer 1995 {published data only}
Bauer HC, Brosjo O, Kreicbergs A, Lindholm J. Low risk of recurrence of enchondroma and low-grade chondrosarcoma in extremities. 80 patients followed for 2 - 25 years. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1995;66(3):283–8.
Campanacci 2013 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Campanacci DA, Scoccianti G, Franchi A. Surgical treatment of central grade 1 chondrosarcoma of the appendicular skeleton. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2013;14:101–7.
Chen 2017 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Chen YC, Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen WM. Intralesional curettage of central low-grade chondrosarcoma: a midterm follow-up study. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA 2017;80(3):178–82.
Dierselhuis 2016 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Dierselhuis EF, Gerbers JG, Ploegmakers JJW, Stevens M, Suurmeijer AJH, Jutte PC. Local treatment with adjuvant therapy for central atypical cartilaginous tumors in the long bones. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2016;98:303–13.
Di Giorgio 2011 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Di Giorgio L, Touloupakis G, Vitullo F, Sodano L, Mastantuono M, Villani C. Intralesional curettage, with phenol and cement as adjuvants, for low-grade intramedullary chondrosarcoma of the long bones. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2011;77:666–9.
2
Donati 2010 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Donati D, Colangeli S, Colangeli M, Di Bella C, Bertoni F. Surgical treatment of grade I central chondrosarcoma. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010;468(2): 581–9.
Etchebehere 2005 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Etchebehere M, de Camargo OP, Croci AT, Oliveira CR, Baptista AM. Relationship between surgical procedure and outcome for patients with grade I chondrosarcomas. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2005;60:121–6.
Funovics 2010 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Funovics PT, Panotopoulos J, Sabeti-Aschraf M, Abdolvahab F, Funovics JM, Lang S, et al. Low-grade chondrosarcoma of bone: experiences from the Vienna Bone and Soft Tissue Tumour Registry. International Orthopaedics 2011;35(7): 1049–56.
Gunay 2013 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Gunay C, Atalar H, Hapa O, Basarir K, Yildiz, Saglik Y. Surgical management of Grade I chondrosarcoma of the long bones. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2013;79:331–7.
Hanna 2009 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Hanna SA, Whittingham-Jones P, Sewell MD, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Saifuddin A, et al. Outcome of intralesional curettage for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones. Journal of Cancer Surgery 2009;35:1343–47.
Kim 2015 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Kim W, Han I, Kim EJ, Kang S, Kim H. Outcomes of curettage and anhydrous alcohol adjuvant for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bone. Surgical Oncology 2015;24: 89–94.
Kim 2018 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Kim W, Lee JS, Chung HW. Outcomes after extensive manual curettage and limited burring for atypical cartilaginous tumour of long bone. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 2018;100-B(2):256–61.
2
Leerapun 2007 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Leerapun T, Hugate RR, Inwards CY, Scully SP, Sim FH. Surgical management of conventional grade I chondrosarcoma of long bones. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2007;463:166–72.
Mermerkaya 2014 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Mermerkaya MU, Bekmez S, Karaaslan F, Danisman M, Kosemehmetoglu K, Gedikoglu G, et al. Intralesional curettage and cementation for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones: retrospective study and literature review. World Journal of Surgical Oncology 2014;12:336–41.
Mohler 2010 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Mohler DG, Chiu R, McCall DA, Avedian RS. Curettage and cryosurgery for low-grade cartilage tumors is associated with low recurrence and high function. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010;10(468):2765–73.
Van der Geest 2008 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Van der Geest IC, De Valk MH, De Rooy JW, Pruszczynski M, Veth RP, Schreuder HW. Oncological and functional results of cryosurgical therapy of enchondromas and chondrosarcomas grade 1. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2008;98(6):421–6.
Verdegaal 2012 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Verdegaal SH, Brouwers HF, Van Zwet EW, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH. Low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones treated with intralesional curettage followed by application of phenol, ethanol, and bone-grafting. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 2012;94(13): 1201–7.
REFERENCES TO STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM THIS REVIEW
Ahlmann 2007 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Fedenko AN, Learch T. Influence of cryosurgery on treatment outcome of low- grade chondrosarcoma. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2006;451:201– 7.
2
Errani 2017 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Errani C, Tsukamoto S, Ciani G, Akahane M, Cevolani L, Tanzi P, et al. Risk factors for local recurrence from atypical cartilaginous tumour and enchondroma of the long bones. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology : Orthopedie Traumatologie 2017;27(6):805–11.
Lee 1999 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Lee FY, Mankin HJ, Fondren G, Gebhardt MC, Springfield DS, Rosenberg AE, et al. Chondrosarcoma of bone: an assessment of outcome. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 1999;81(3):326–38.
Okada 2009 {published data only}
Okada K, Nagasawa H, Chida S, Nishida J. Curettage with pasteurization in situ for grade 1 chondrosarcoma - long- term follow up study of less invasive surgical procedure. Medical Science Monitor 2009;15(3):CS44–8.
Ozaki 1996 {published data only}
Ozaki T, Lindner N, Hillmann A, Rödl R, Blasius S, Winkelmann W. Influence of intralesional surgery on treatment outcome of chondrosarcoma. Cancer 1996;77(7): 1292–7.
Puri 2009 {published data only}
Puri A, Shah M, Agarwal MG, Jambhekar NA, Basappa P. Chondrosarcoma of bone: does the size of the tumor, the presence of a pathologic fracture, or prior intervention have an impact on local control and survival?. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics 2009;5(1):14–9.
Schreuder 1998 {published data only}
Schreuder HW, Pruszczynski M, Veth RP, Lemmens JA. Treatment of benign and low-grade malignant intramedullary chondroid tumours with curettage and
cryosurgery. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 1998;24 (2):120–6.
Souna 2010 {published data only}
Souna BS, Belot N, Duval H, Langlais F, Thomazeau H. No recurrences in selected patients after curettage with cryotherapy for grade I chondrosarcomas. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010;468(7):1956–62.
2
REFERENCES TO STUDIES AWAITING ASSESSMENT
Andreou 2011 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Andreou D, Ruppin S, Fehlberg S, Pink D, Werner M, Tunn PU. Survival and prognostic factors in chondrosarcoma results in 115 patients with long-term follow-up. Acta Orthopaedica 2011;82(6):749–55.
Angelini 2012 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Angelini A, Guerra G, Mavrogenis AF, Pala E, Picci P, Ruggieri P. Clinical outcome of central conventional chondrosarcoma. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2012;106(8): 929–37.
de Camargo 2010 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
de Camargo OP, Baptista AM, Atanásio MJ, Waisberg DR. Chondrosarcoma of bone: lessons from 46 operated cases in a single institution. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010;468(11):2969–75.
Ma 2009 {published data only}
Ma XJ, Dong Y, Zhang CL, Zeng BF. Recurrence analysis in 66 cases with grade I and grade II chondrosarcomas in the extremities. Orthopaedic Surgery 2009;1(2):132–6.
Meftah 2013 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Meftah M, Schult P, Henshaw RM. Long-term results of intralesional curettage and cryosurgery for treatment of low-grade chondrosarcoma. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 2013;95(15):1358–64. Streitbuerger 2009 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Streitbürger A, Ahrens H, Balke M, Buerger H, Winkelmann
W, Gosheger G, et al. Grade I chondrosarcoma of bone: the Münster experience. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 2009;135(4):543–50.
2
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Bjornsson 1998
Bjornsson J, McLeod RA, Unni KK, Ilstrup DM, Pritchard DJ. Primary chondrosarcoma of long bones and limb girdles. Cancer 1998;83(10):2105–19.
Deeks 2001
Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. 2nd Edition. London: BMJ Publication Group, 2001.
Eefting 2009
Eefting D, Schrage YM, Geirnaerdt MJ, Le Cessie S, Taminiau AH, Bovée JV, et al. Assessment of interobserver variability and histologic parameters to improve reliability in classification and grading of central cartilaginous tumors. American Journal of Surgical Pathology 2009;33(1):50–7.
Enneking 1986
Enneking WF. A system of staging musculoskeletal neoplasms. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1986; 204:9–24.
Enneking 1993
Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1993;286:241–6.
Eriksson 1980
Eriksson AI, Schiller A, Mankin HJ. The management of chondrosarcoma of bone. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1980;153:44–66.
ESMO 2012
ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group. Bone sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology 2012;23(Suppl 7):vii100– 9.
2
Evans 1977
Evans HL, Ayala AG, Romsdahl MM. Prognostic factors in chondrosarcoma of bone: a clinicopathologic analysis with emphasis on histologic grading. Cancer 1977;40(2): 818–31.
Fiorenza 2002
Fiorenza F, Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Ayoub K, et al. Risk factors for survival and local control in chondrosarcoma of bone. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 2002;84(1):93–9.
Fletcher 2013
Fletcher CD, Bridge JA, Hogendoorn P, Mertens F. WHO Classification of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. IARC WHO Classification of Tumours. Fourth. Vol. 5, IARC, 2013.
Geirnaerdt 1997
Geirnaerdt MJ, Hermans J, Bloem JL, Kroon HM, Pope TL, Taminiau AH, et al. Usefulness of radiography
in differentiating enchondroma from central grade 1 chondrosarcoma. American Journal of Roentgenology 1997; 169(4):1097–104.
Gelderblom 2008
Gelderblom H, Hogendoorn PC, Dijkstra SD, Van Rijswijk CS, Krol AD, Taminiau AH, et al. The clinical approach towards chondrosarcoma. Oncologist 2008;13(3):320–9.
Giuffrida 2009
Giuffrida AY, Burgueno JE, Koniaris LG, Gutierrez JC, Duncan R, Scully SP. Chondrosarcoma in the United States (1973 to 2003): an analysis of 2890 cases from the SEER database. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2009;91(5): 1063–72.
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed prior to 30 April 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
2
Healey 1986
Healey JH, Lane JM. Chondrosarcoma. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1986;204:119–29.
Hickey 2011
Hickey M, Farrokhyar F, Deheshi B, Turcotte R, Ghert M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intralesional versus wide resection for intramedullary grade I chondrosarcoma of the extremities. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2011;18(6): 1705–9.
Higgins 2003
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327: 557–60.
Jundt 2008
Jundt G, Baumhoer D. Cartilage tumors of the skeleton. Der Pathologe 2008;29(Suppl 2):223–31.
Langendam 2013
Langendam MW, Akl EA, Dahm P, Glasziou P, Guyatt G, Schunemann HJ. Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews. Systematic Reviews 2013;23 (2):81.
Meader 2014
Meader N, King K, Llewellyn A, Norman G, Brown J, Rodgers M, et al. A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation. Systematic Reviews 2014;3:82.
Mirra 1985
Mirra JM, Gold R, Downs J, Eckardt JJ. A new histologic approach to the differentiation of enchondroma and chondrosarcoma of the bones. A clinicopathologic analysis of 51 cases. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1985; 201:214–37.
Moher 2009
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine 6;7:e1000097. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pmed1000097
